On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:31:41 GMT, Andrew Dinn <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Looking further into this I cannot see anywhere where these stubs are being 
>> used? So, it's hard to say what is really needed here.
>> 
>> However, it looks to me as if these two return value stubs ought to be 
>> generated as `SharedRuntime` stubs. That is where we generate stubs that 
>> need their own blob and also require an associated oop map. The right time 
>> to generate looks like under the call to 
>> `SharedRuntime::generate_initial_stubs()`. That will occur just after 
>> generation of the `StubGen initial` stubs i.e. before generating any of the 
>> gc/jfr/continuation stubs or interpreter and before calling 
>> `AOTCodeCache::init3()`.
>
> The callee should be passed a stub id which it can use to look up the stub 
> name provided in the stub declaration. That also means there is no need to 
> provide a true/false argument as the callee can pick its generation strategy 
> based on stub id.
> 
> The target address can also be determined in the callee according to whatever 
> the stub id is. If you want to pass it here then you will need to add asserts 
> in the callee that the method is the correct target for the stub id.
> 
> Also, in order for save and restore of the generated stubs to work the two 
> target addresses need to be added to the AOT address table as external 
> addresses in AOTCodeCache::init_extrs().
> 
> Since generation of these  subs is dependent on the setting of 
> `InlineTypeReturnedAsFields` the resulting dependence of any generated AOT 
> code cache's contents on this flag setting needs to be recorded by adding an 
> entry for `InlineTypeReturnedAsFields` to macro 
> `AOTCODECACHE_CONFIGS_GENERIC_DO` in file `aotCodecache.hpp.`
> 
> If any help is required to implement these changes I am happy to provide 
> guidance.

Thanks for your review @adinn and sorry for the delay. Roland offered to take a 
look and I think he'll address your comments with 
[JDK-8387661](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8387661).

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31122#discussion_r3512679275

Reply via email to